Give Biden Credit for Waste in a Crisis

Give Biden Credit for Waste in a Crisis

Emergencies like the Ukraine war produce temporary political consensus. That opens doors to both good and bad ideas and presents presidents with opportunities and perils.

At the megaphone.

By Jonathan Bernstein

Photographer: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Let’s talk about presidenting during a crisis.

A crisis, the late political scientist Nelson W. Polsby used to say, is “a period where everybody believes that something must be done.” The Russian invasion of Ukraine certainly fits that definition — and it’s both an opportunity and a danger for a presidency.

The opportunity side of it is captured in the phrase attributed to everyone from former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to Winston Churchill: Never let a good crisis go to waste. (Which brings to mind another Polsbyism: Famous words migrate into famous mouths.)

Getting things done in any democracy is difficult, and it’s probably harder in the U.S. system than most. A crisis is often when the systemic bias in favor of the status quo is at its weakest, and when the agenda of what is considered politically possible is most open to change. The key is that defining the crisis is what opens those political doors.

Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is a rationale for more domestic production of oil and gas for those who already favor it. It becomes part of the case for more energy alternatives presented by the groups that already support them, or for balancing the budget or cutting spending or raising taxes or funding favored programs.

Every politician plays this game, but presidents have the biggest megaphone. President George W. Bush used his in 2001 when he defined the proper response to the Sept. 11 attacks as a “war on terrorism,” and later when he operationalized that “war” into the invasion of Iraq and used it to give the Federal Bureau of Investigation and intelligence agencies more latitude — and to justify the use of torture. Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, decided that a government reorganization was the relevant response, and so we got the Department of Homeland Security.

The logic is that of the so-called politician’s syllogism, as memorably explained in the 1980s British sitcom, “Yes Minister”:

We must do something.

This is something.

Therefore, we must do this.

So far, President Joe Biden does not appear to be attempting to use the Ukraine crisis to achieve any of his previous unrelated or loosely related goals, or really for anything not directly relevant to helping Ukraine. Emanuel and Churchill might think that’s a failure on his part, and I’d say they have a point.

But the risk is that the things that politicians jump to do during a crisis — things they might fail to accomplish otherwise — might be things best left alone. In normal times, the democratic system makes it hard to execute a pointless government reorganization, or embark on a program of torture, or invade a country. Status-quo bias can block worthy objectives, but it can also block foolhardy schemes, as those invested in stopping them work to activate one or more of the many veto points in the U.S. political structure.

Which brings me to the suggestion that Biden should declare and enforce a no-fly zone over Ukraine. During a crisis, especially one in which people are dying, the pressure to Do More can be enormous. It’s not surprising that some out-party politicians and some pundits will grab hold of some idea that experts think would be a dangerous mistake. Even tougher for Biden is that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is among those urging the U.S. to Do More, including possibly establishing a no-fly zone over his country. After all, not only do people find Zelenskiy immensely appealing and wish to help him, but a big part of U.S. policy is to help him draw sympathy and support. And yet Ukrainian interests are not always identical to U.S. interests.

The ability to ignore whatever folks on cable news networks and Twitter are demanding has become an important attribute of a good 21st-century president. That ability becomes exponentially more important during a crisis, when the pressure to do something is the greatest and the barriers to doing something stupid may drop away. Skilled presidenting in those situations can be all about avoiding the politician’s syllogism in the face of temptation.

To be sure, experts aren’t always right, and presidents should seek out information from all sorts of sources, including cable news and Twitter. That’s a good way to guard against groupthink. The trick is to mine the useful information while refusing to forfeit the agenda-setting role.

We’re three weeks into the invasion, and I’m not trying to judge Biden’s specific policy choices. Even if I had more expertise in war and foreign affairs, I’d probably say it was too soon to tell. But as for process, I think it is fair to say that he gets poor marks for taking advantage of a crisis — but a very good grade for restraint when there’s pressure to keep doing more.

That’s giving him both good and bad reviews for the exact same set of actions. It was with good reason that presidency scholar Richard Neustadt said that the White House “is no place for amateurs.”

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:

Jonathan Bernstein at jbernstein62@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:

Jonathan Landman at jlandman4@bloomberg.net